Talk:Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

Latest comment: 13 years ago by JeffGBot in topic Dead link 2
Former good article nomineeConvention on the Reduction of Statelessness was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Untitled

edit

Quite proud of the work I did to do this up from scratch. Wonder when anybody is going to come by and improve it?? DavidYork71 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question

edit
I moved the following question down from the sub-header. (Ghostexorcist 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

How do i make 'statelessness reduction convention' as a search phrase that redirects to this page? DavidYork71 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just type "Statelessness reduction convention" into the search box. When the page loads, at the top of it wiill be red letters that pretty much say that the article doesn't exist and that you can create it by clicking on it. Then type "#REDIRECT [[1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness]]" and that's it. (Ghostexorcist 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

GA nom

edit

I have a feeling that this article is going to be failed very quickly. There is next to little citations and the page is more of a list. As far as I know, lists are never given GA status. The page needs to be restructured and all of the info needs to be incorporated into paragraphs to get rid of all the bullet points. (Ghostexorcist 08:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Please follow the "wikified" link in the second blude box from the top to read about the proper structure of an article. And "Articles initiated by DavidYork71" is not a proper category. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. (Ghostexorcist 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC))Reply
I failed the article because of the many points I've addressed. (Ghostexorcist 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Failed "good article" nomination

edit

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pros are too short to tell if it’s well written. Only a sentence or two are written before another list is used. This reads really stiff and choppy like a lawyer wrote it. Smooth out and extend the statements a little more.
2. Factually accurate?: There are no “active” in-line citations. You forgot to put <References/> at the bottom of the page to activate them. You need more than just three sources for such an article.
3. Broad in coverage?: It’s basically a list. Each section with paragraphs is very tiny. Please combine all bullet points into paragraphs.
4. Neutral point of view?: A few statements here and there that are hidden amongst technical jargon.
5. Article stability? It seems to be a random collection of info. The page needs to be restructured to have a lead paragraph, body, and conclusion if applicable. Also, I see where you typed in the code for another pic with Gypsy girls in it, but did it wrong, so the code is visible and the picture is not.
6. Images?: Need more of them. No picture should come before text (like the very first pic for example).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Ghostexorcist 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate info

edit

This page has the exact same text and pics as Statelessness. I suggest that one be merged into the other. (Ghostexorcist 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Merge tag removed. This and statelessness page differ now by text summary of the Convention appearing here while the other relates the history of UN efforts to address the issue, including the 1954 Status Convention. Has anybody heard of the UN Special Rapporteur on Statelessness? or is that just a proposal that has not come to fruition. Please edit and update with any relevant info re that. DavidYork71 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

USA signatory

edit

If you look on page 39 of this PDF it looks like the us is a signatory of the Convention, which contradicts the map. Or have I got things wrong?

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20989/volume-989-I-14458-English.pdf

Lotu (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply